Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’

WASHINGTON, DC — There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyer’s lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

The comment came as part of a larger riff on a comment Scalia made the last time the landmark voting law was before the justices. Noting the fact that the Voting Rights Act reauthorization passed 98-0 when it was before the Senate in 2006, Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”

That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious.

It should be noted that even one of Scalia’s fellow justices felt the need to call out his remark. Justice Sotomayor asked the attorney challenging the Voting Right Act whether he thought voting rights are a racial entitlement as soon as he took the podium for rebuttal.

A transcript of the oral argument will be available soon, and we will post Scalia’s quote in its full context. We will also post audio of Scalia’s words when they become available.

His choicest line today may have been this: “I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.” Who does he think he is, Chris freaking Matthews? Since when is it a Justice’s job to divine when the people’s representatives are acting from pure motives, and when they are moved by crass “racial entitlements,” as he describes the guarantees that allowed millions of African Americans to vote for the first time? Call that what it is, but it sure as hell isn’t originalism. It’s just lawless free-styling.

50. Not quite

74. Scalia is a piece of shit.

But he's just a cog in a wheel.

I have a suspicion that SCOTUS will overturn. It's part of the dark agenda that has been moving at a steady pace. An agenda that changes the "right" to vote to a privilege granted by a powerful oligarchy. The 2010 election gives gerrymandering control in quite a few states to the right-wing. Combine that with their blatant attempts to suppress the vote... it all adds up to a bleak future for this once great democracy.

9. Just when you think he couldn't get any worse.

10. Why was the

question about Massachussetts bought up? What does the most Liberal state in the country or one of the most have to do with Voting Rights? I heard one of the conservative Judges interjected that State.

36. He just made the argument FOR the Voting Rights Act. n/t

13. Keep in mind...

...that this SCOTUS is the one that said "corporations are people too," and with a slightly different makeup, handed a contested election to George W. Bush.

I remember a story from my dad, when he was in the Army at Ft. Hood, Texas in the late '50s. He said that he and three other soldiers (one of whom was black) went into a lunch counter at a bus station to eat. The owner said "he'll (the black soldier) have to wait outside." My dad said to the owner, "He's just as good as the rest of us and he's serving his country to protect your damned sorry ass. If he isn't good enough to get served in this piece of shit you call a lunch counter, then g*ddammit we aren't either!" They left.

82. oh yeah the good ol days--that's what they want

105. Didn't Rand Paul say just that?

That if someone who owned a business didn't want to serve a person for whatever reason (including race) they shouldn't have to?

Things have come a long way since my dad's dustup with the POS at the lunch counter in Texas. When I went through Air Force Basic Training, a good chunk of the MTI's (AF for Drill Sergeant) were African-American, including my Training Superintendent (a Master Sergeant).

Scalia has his head up his arse, and so does Clarence Thomas for that matter. Thomas has to know history of how black people were mistreated in this country...could it just be that he hasn't internalised it, or he (falsely) believes that it couldn't happen again?

125. Agreed...

When the USAF was made an independent service it was nonsegregated from the start by President Harry Truman. I doubt that the valour of the Tuskegee Airmen in WWII went unnoticed by Truman.

At the same time he ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard to be desegregated. Some generals and admirals howled but Harry basically told them to get on board or get the hell out.

Props to the remark about health care - I was in the Air National Guard and while activated for training I had to have a hospital stay of several days in an AF hospital...cost me nothing and excellent care...why the rest of this country doesn't pull its finger out about true UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE I cannot fathom.

128. Ya want ...

Socialism?

Seriously the only conclusion you can come to is that the Corporate Powers actually do not want a healthy population. They want a population stressed and uncertain, and deprived. Paying through the nose to insurance companies, driven crazy with patching together health insurance, and limiting access to hospitals and medical providers, who are stressed as well. My 80 something MIL was agitating day in and day out about what would happen to Medicare if Obama was not elected. Why do we put someone who spent 45 years in civil service through that, at her age? Not to mention the rest of us? It is a lose-lose for all of us. But somebody is winning. Somebody who does not care about investing in the health of the people, not one little bit.

58. I think Taney may have been re-incarnated in this idiot.

15. Scalia is scum.

Political conservatism has a great history on civil rights (sarcasm intended most deliberately). Did Scalia ever object to Jim Crow at its cruelest? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that Jim Crow was a creation of conservatism, and the Ku Klux Klan was founded and supported for generations by conservatives. (And I speak as a moderate!)

25. Scalia is a douchebag.

On stare decisis (adhering to judicial precedent)
"The Court's reliance on stare decisis can best be described as contrived."
(Planned Parenthood vs Casey, 505 US 833 1992 Dissenting)

On Robert F. Kennedy's famous quote:
"Robert F. Kennedy used to say, 'Some men see things as they are and ask why.
Others dream things that never were and ask why not?'..that outcome has become a far too common and destructive approach to interpreting the law."
(Speech at Catholic University, Columbus School of Law)

85. Italians also invented fascism

30. Solicitor General being disingenous............

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, asking him whether it was the position of the U.S. government that residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states. Verrilli said no

WTF - yes, of course, they are - prove be seen every single day with what is coming out of those states. He could have said - while not all it has been proven that there are more of those (stinking, slimey, white male republicans) that are likely to be racist and to be honest this is not just a Southern states thing.

39. That was

the wrong answer. Does he have any voting rights data to support that position? Does he work for Eric Holder? Because if he does, he is incompetent. He is defeating his own case for the purpose of the Voting Rights ACT. Nobody have him there to play footsies with the opposition.

48. No ...

That was the right answer to a trap question.

The question was not about voting data; but rather, whether residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states.

this case is not about a generalized attitude, but the demonstrated conduct of those subject to the provision. As recently as 2010, the County of (I don't recall) drew a particular voter district ... a district where the incumbent is Black ... in a manner that changed it from 80% Black to 70% white. Now, this - in and of itself - is not evidence of racial misconduct; however, it is exactly what Section 5 was enacted to do, require changes to voter districts of affected states to pre-clear those changes, in order to prevent violation to the VRA. And, in this particular case, it bore out; the DoJ review disallowed the changes after finding a racial effect ... Just as the Act contemplated.

93. My answer would

have still been yes after considering your answer. I would not have cut it off to just data at some small period in time. I would have used all the empirical data in research studies. The purpose of the Voting Rights Law was enacted because of the South. Measures within the Voting Rights Law were placed there to strengthen the law because Southern Legislatures found ways to skirt around Federal Law for the purposes of Discrimination. There are measures in the Law to opt out, based on performance.

Racial Discrimination for the purposes of voting is also done on a political scale. That is clearly seen by the Party these judges against the Law are in. The last Election cycles are clear evidence of the Republican Party's systematic attempts on a larger scale to deny voting rights to minorities. And there should be a lot more cases from the DOJ, on a larger scale against the Republican Party. I would not play footsies with them. The DOJ in fact should have joined the International community, when it was invited in to monitor the U.S. Election by Civil Rights groups instead of being cowed by the Republican Party.

My stance is the Republican Party is dangerous to American Democracy and the gains it has made ever since the Civil War. The Republican Party has morphed in to the Party of States' Rights, dominated by white supremacists, mostly from southern Politicians. The attempts by at least four Justices on the Court are clear evidence to me. The same Court that broke precedent and interfered in the Presidential election of 2000 within a state.

The bottom line is the Voting Rights Act is the clear Law of the land. I don't know why it is being revisited every incremental stage by this Supreme Court, when abusers of the Law seek reprieve? It has been clearly Constitutional by other U.S. Supreme Courts ever since enacted. That is why this has the appearance of politicization. They appear to want the law weaken. What is the difference in weakening the law for everyone that wants to break laws because it happens somewhere else? If anything the law is working very well. If anything, the Law should be used more in other places. And if it did, it will probably not be good for the Republican Party because they appear to be the biggest offenders currently.

45. You are absolutely

correct! That is in plain Black and White! Scalia's assertion overstepped his authority, if that is his interpretation, he is just wrong! As a Supreme Court Justice, he should know that if he can read English!

35. I believe Scalia is a Catholic of Italian descent. I think he has forgotten a lot of

107. He has...

On how Italian Catholics were discriminated against, along with Irish Catholics.

I am of Swiss-German/Elsassich-Lothringen descent on my father's side. Around the turn of the 20th century one of my ancestors felt the need to "Englisch" our family name because of all the anti-German sentiment going around.

38. Scalia is so wrong

I am an old white lady, aged 73. When I was first able to vote in the early 1960's in Texas, I had to pay a poll tax which was equal to about half a weeks grocery money. I had 3 little babies and my husband didn't make much money and it was tough to come up with the money to pay the tax, but oh how I wanted to vote. I first voted on the South side of San Antonio, what an experience it gave me chills to think about all the people who fought for the right for me to vote that day. At that time I didn't question the poll tax, that was just the way it was in Texas. The voting right act helps poor people by giving them an easier and cheaper way to vote. Now we have gerrymandered districts, voter ID, restricted voting times, fewer places to vote, all to make it harder to get to the poll.

It is so important that the Democrats hold on to the Senate and try to take the House. Some of the Supremes are going to either retire or die and we have to appoint new justices. We want the Democrats in charge when that time comes. We are now paying the price of having all those years of Republicans in charge.

46. There is more than Scalia involved in this mess

All of the conservatives have been on the negative against Section 5.
If it was just nut job Scalia, I wouldn't worry, but it's the conservative majority: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito that I worry about.

I don't believe President Obama filed a brief as he did with the DOMA case the other day. Why didn't he???

51. Here's the part that pretty much sums up what Scalia has in mind.

"Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it."

So strike it down because now there is something to be gained politically? Scalia gives scumbags a bad name.

52. Supreme Court Seems Poised to Rule Against Part of Voting Rights Act

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court continued to express strong reservations today about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, suggesting the key provision of the law might be in danger.

That section of the law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations precleared by federal officials.

On this first day of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts got to the heart of the debate. He asked whether the government thought that citizens in the South were "more racist" than citizens in the North.

56. I'm sure Scalia believes those entitled people are due their full 3/5 of a vote. n/t

57. So stupid

Racism did not end when the voting rights act passed, racism didn't end when Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and it didn't end when he was re-elected in 2012. Racism still exists, and sadly it always will. Living in the south, I know for a fact that if this is repealed maybe not the entire south but some areas in the south will go back to their old 1960s ways.

63. Just heard this on MSNBC, makes me feel sick

So now we're turning back the clock on another issue?! This was the most successful civil rights law in history, so of course Scalia finds a reason to be against it. And on the day we honor Rosa Parks, too...

66. I would love to see him removed from the bench

67. The 24th Amendment, Ratified in 1964, Bans Poll Taxes And Other Taxes

As well as directing Congress to pass any and all laws to enforce the 24th Amendment. The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was in direct response to this call to act. It will be interesting to see how Scalia attempts to decouple these two items.

Kennedy's comment about "times change" indicates that he would have no problem with nullifying an act of Congress and signed by the President. Nullification in this manner is clearly legislating from the bench, pure and simple. Frankly, if there is a flaw with the 1965 Voting Rights Act it is that it does not extend to all 50 States -- or does the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause extend it to all 50 States.

72. Scalia himself

makes the best arguments against his own positions. He is a truly pitiful caricature of a jurist and a national embarrassment. But he is only a servant. What needs to be thoroughly examined is the political system that deliberately elevates such a low creature to such a high place.

78. This is obviously just one more ploy being used by Republicans to suppress voters in the Democratic

base. They see this as the best way to win future elections. If the five Republican appointees strike down all or most of the Voting Rights Act it will be their most egregious decision since Bush v Gore.”

89. I come from Hillsborough County, Florida

One of the areas under the special provisions of the Voting Rights act. We are the place that Rick Scott slashed early voting, tried to set up voter id, and that also slashed many people off the rolls because they were suspected immigrants, even if many of said Latinos were born here, and had in fact been in this state well before Jeb Bush or Rick Scott moved down here. We were famous last year for having so many issues with late polls that, once again, we could not count them in time.

And that was last year.

I will not need to get into the fact that blacks were lynched here, or even the fact that many down here proudly wear t shirts that glorify the clan, no, I am not talking just about the mealy mouthed "It's heritage not hate" or "if you find this flag to be offensive, you need a history lesson" shirts, or the fact we still have the nation's largest confederate flag flying right at the i-4 overpass, erected so that Super Bowl tourists would have to drive right by it.

I could also recommend that you check out the comment section in the Tampa Bay times, with a loyal bunch of trolls saying how liberal the times is. You will get the ones ranging from the "I am a realist, not a racist" to outright good old boys who speak of days when liberals will be lynched, the ones who find every way possible to sneak in sometime that rhymes or sounds like that N word.

These are the folk who are angry at Rick Scott because he is too LIBERAL.

The point is, Tampa is a mid size city, with enough democrats to vote for obama, no thanks to long lines, and people in the paper bragging about how they could shoot liberals under stand your ground laws. The only reason we have not become outright hostile is because laws are in place, and it is no accident that the people wanting to destroy these laws are the same ones who keep insisting that there was no bad behavior, even though we became an international laughingstock, yet again. If they say these laws are not needed, I tell you, they are most certainly needed, exactly because they are ashamed to admit that we still need them!

109. Tony, honey, are Italians REALLY "white"?

I mean, the northern ones maybe, but isn't "swarthy" one of the descriptive terms for your kind? Not that it matters, OF COURSE, but don't romance writers refer to Italian, Greek, and Arab men as all having "long BROWN fingers"?

"Black" civil rights protect every minority in this country including mine. Yours too, Tony, you short-memoried senile ass.

104. This is a prime example of why there shouldn't be life-time appointments.

Scalia is an Opus Dei fascist. This secret society that was formed in Spain by fascist supporters of Franco has infiltrated the highest levels of government and business throughout Western governments.

119. It's time for fat Tony to join the Pope in retirement

121. I may be a cockeyed optimist, but

I have hope that before I cross over, we the people are going to deal with Scalia and his cabal in a very public and very final way - the way they should have been dealt with in December 2000. A way that will be extremely discouraging to anyone who decides that democracy should be illegal.

123. Do something. Scalia is determined to be the Constitution's wrecking crew.

There is a petition on the White House petition site to have Scalia recalled. Sign it..
.
.
Do not miss out today's Robert Parry editorial over at Consortium . Scalia and friends are on a mission to be the Constitution's wrecking crew. Parry's title. The Neo Confederate Supreme Court. Next up is a neutered Constitution , where State's rights trump the Bill of Rights and state's might well bring about new Nullification laws. After that neutering of the commerce clause. No surprise , Scalia and Friends have not sworn allegiance to the Constitution but to the Federalist Society . They are hell bent on installing the Federalist Society's mission before Obama appoints another justice.
Today, there is a way to fight back, Scalia need be impeached for his treasonous regard for the Constitution.. Wait and Jim Crow will be the law and the Commerce Clause will be history..
Do something. Sign the petition on the White House petition site calling for Scalia's Impeachment. -